Insurers have largely succeeded in challenging COVID-19 business interruption losses claimed by a group of small businesses, in an important second test case that could save the industry billions of dollars.
An appeals court hearing the case of a barrister who allegedly made a sexual comment to a clerk while intoxicated at a dinner following a legal industry event has questioned how a professional reprimand can serve a protective purpose if the person remains unnamed.
Supermarket giant Woolworths will pay an additional $50 million to current and former salaried team members and has provisionally settled an underpayments class action against it.
Priceline faces a class action by a group of franchisees accusing the pharmacy giant of exercising an “overly prescriptive level of control” that limits their profitability.
Class action reforms proposed last week by the Morrison government would lead to the “rapid abandonment” of open class actions by law firms and litigation funders, two leading barristers have argued.
Two shareholders of failed steel giant Arrium have told the High Court that granting their bid to grill former directors of the company would not be an abuse of process because it was in the public interest to “expose” the management of the defunct business.
The applicants in the Queensland floods class action have asked the High Court to overturn a judgment which found dam operator Seqwater was not liable because it was functioning as a public authority when operating two dams during the 2011 floods, arguing the case raises important issues about appeals in ‘mega’ litigation.
Lendlease has taken two consultants and a designer to court to recoup $8.7 million it spent on replacing combustible cladding used on its $107 million EXO residential apartment block in Melbourne’s Docklands.
Dick Smith’s former CFO will appeal a $43 million judgment in favour of National Australia Bank over his role in the retailer’s collapse.
IOOF unit RI Advice has lost its bid to strike out ASIC’s novel case claiming it failed to protect its clients against cybersecurity risks, but a judge has chastised the regulator for causing “needless confusion” and “wasted time”.